Comments on A revolution in thought

This I do not agree with. Except a Buddha, there is not even a single person who is not affected by past, in fact, every action of a man is affected by past. Only a Buddha lives so totally in the present moment that the past is wiped out. Rest of the human beings are reacting towards situations and these reactions are not free from past but rather 'programmed', built upon experiences of past.

That is true, but the past doesn't exist in reality. Everything that occurs is in the present. Our choices are not caused by the past; things that happen to us create conditions which arouse our desire to choose the things we choose. That is an important distinction. The author writes:

﻿"Let me repeat this crucial point because it is the source of somuch confusion: Although man’s will is not free there isabsolutely nothing, not environment, heredity, God, or anythingelse that causes him to do what he doesn’t want to do. Theenvironment does not cause him to commit a crime, it just presentsconditions under which his desire is aroused, consequently, hecan’t blame what is not responsible, but remember his particularenvironment is different because he himself is different otherwiseeverybody would desire to commit a crime. Once he chooses to acton his desire whether it is a minor or more serious crime he doesn’tcome right out and say, “I hurt that person not because I wascompelled to do it against my will but only because I wanted to doit” because the standards of right and wrong prevent him fromderiving any satisfaction out of such honesty when this will onlyevoke blame, criticism, and punishment of some sort for hisdesires. Therefore, he is compelled to justify those actionsconsidered wrong with excuses, extenuating circumstances, and theshifting of guilt to someone or something else as the cause, toabsorb part if not all the responsibility which allowed him toabsolve his conscience in a world of judgment and to hurt othersin many cases with impunity since he could demonstrate why hewas compelled to do what he really didn’t want to do.

You see ithappen all the time, even when a child says, “Look what you mademe do” when you know you didn’t make him do anything. Spillinga glass of milk because he was careless, and not wishing to beblamed, the boy searches quickly for an excuse to shift theresponsibility to something that does not include him. Why elsewould the boy blame his own carelessness on somebody orsomething else if not to avoid the criticism of his parents? It isalso true that the boy’s awareness that he would be blamed andpunished for carelessness — which is exactly what took place —makes him think very carefully about all that he does to prevent theblame and punishment he doesn’t want.

A great confusion existsbecause it is assumed that if man does something to hurt anotherhe could always excuse his actions by saying, “I couldn’t helpmyself because my will is not free.” This is another aspect of theimplications which turned philosophers off from a thoroughinvestigation. In the following dialogue, my friend asks forclarification regarding certain critical points."

So: if, as Thinker says, "there is not even a single person who is not affected by past", then -- really -- each of us is bound up in what we 'believe' happened, what we 'imagine' happened, not what actually happened.

Certainly: knowing that what one remembers is mostly angel farts and fabrication makes it easier to stomach the 'bad', to disengage somewhat from the 'good' (not be too distracted by past pleasures and victories), and to play "Buddha".

I'm not suggesting 'forgive and forget' (I suggest 'eye for an eye'): instead, I'm suggesting the lack of universals, of a hardcore past we can reference definitively (and a future we can predict with any kind of accuracy) leave each of us 'here and now'.

So: if, as Thinker says, "there is not even a single person who is not affected by past", then -- really -- each of us is bound up in what we 'believe' happened, what we 'imagine' happened, not what actually happened.

All that you said is true.

"henryquirk" wrote:Certainly: knowing that what one remembers is mostly angel farts and fabrication makes it easier to stomach the 'bad', to disengage somewhat from the 'good' (not be too distracted by past pleasures and victories), and to play "Buddha".

I'm not suggesting 'forgive and forget' (I suggest 'eye for an eye'): instead, I'm suggesting the lack of universals, of a hardcore past we can reference definitively (and a future we can predict with any kind of accuracy) leave each of us 'here and now'.

We all have our unique memories of a situation which are usually not completely accurate. Even if they are, we only see our perspective, which is only a part of the whole. You are missing the whole point of this thread when you say 'eye for an eye'. This knowledge prevents the need to strike back an eye for an eye', or "to turn the other cheek" because the first cheek is prevented from being struck.

"henryquirk" wrote:'Here and now' is where the fun is, where the choices (to make) are.

In my view: the premise is flawed, that is, the choice is between 'free will' and 'determinism'.

'Free will' is a fiction, and, 'determinism' was never synonymous with 'pre-determined'.

There is a third option, that being 'agency' or the idea that the human individual, while mired in countless casual chains, can and does initiate new causal chains all the damned time.

No one has a capacity for unlimited choice. Our choices are bound up in and by our flesh and the world.

Example: I step into a Baskin Robbins. I view the 31 flavors. My inclination/preference is for chocolate or vanilla. The other flavors leave me cold.

I can...

Choose chocolate.

Choose vanilla.

Choose to leave the store without getting ice cream.

Choose to be an ornery fuck and get Pistachio (which I hate).

Any or all of the choices are expression of my will (that is: of 'me'), none of these choices is made in a vacuum (that is: all these choices occur within the context of my inclinations expressed at a certain time in a certain place, with certain elements present).

I have limited choices within a context I only partially control, and still 'I' have four (or, maybe, more) possibles to choose from.

MY choice: MY responsibility.

Joe the thief: makes his choice (to rob, to rob 'me', to beat 'me', and so on).

Joe's selection of a possible within the context he only partially controls is HIS choice: HIS responsibility.

Again; 'free will' is hooey; my autonomy/agency/self-deliberation/-possession is as real as the flesh that comprises me because my autonomy/agency/self-deliberation/-possession IS me.

So, yeah: gimme honest war and violence over semantic, peace-making, bullshit any day.

Yo, phlogi. Does your view lean onto the 'emerging patterns' of chaos theory? I find the idea that a foundation of deterministic 'fun and games' on a fundamental scale can result in a complex, unpredictable (living) being on macro scale fascinating.

Not by design. I'd have to look into the idea. Any reading recommendations?

henry quirk wrote:"You are missing the whole point of this thread when you say 'eye for an eye'. This knowledge prevents the need to strike back"

No.

I get the point of thread...I just don't agree with it.

Example: I may not have a perfect recollection of the event, but the minutia of my being robbed and beaten is irrelevant. What is relevant is that Joe kicked my ass and stole my hat.

I don't need a complete or completely accurate recalling of the event to know Joe made the choice to view me as a resource...there is a consequence to that choice.

When and if I get my hands on Joe, I will hurt him...I will have his eye for my eye.

Justice is for chumps...revenge is golden.

There is no disagreement here. He writes:

﻿There is no comparisonbetween Spinoza and myself. He was a gentle man, I am not. Herefused to blame his sister for stealing what rightfully belonged tohim because he was confused and believed she couldn’t helpherself. I, on the other hand, would never advocate turning theother cheek when someone can get the advantage by not turning it. He excused her conduct, but if someone tried to take whatbelonged to me I’d fight him tooth and nail. Turning the othercheek under these conditions could make matters worse, which iswhy many people reject the pacifist position. How is it humanlypossible not to fight back when one is being hurt first, which goesback to the justification of ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for atooth.’ I personally would get greater satisfaction defendingmyself or retaliating against those people who would do, or havedone, things to hurt me and my family. I’m not a saint, but ascientist of human conduct. Most of mankind is compelled, forgreater satisfaction, to move in this direction.

In my view: the premise is flawed, that is, the choice is between 'free will' and 'determinism'.

It is not flawed; it is your understanding of determinism that is not congruous with the author's definition.

henry quirk" wrote:'Free will' is a fiction, and, 'determinism' was never synonymous with 'pre-determined'.

You are correct.

"henry quirk" wrote:There is a third option, that being 'agency' or the idea that the human individual, while mired in countless casual chains, can and does initiate new causal chains all the damned time.

You are getting close. He does have the ability to choose between options (although his choices are influenced by previous determinants), but what makes his will not free is that he is compelled to choose the alternative that gives him greater satisfaction. He cannot move in the direction of what gives less satisfaction when a more preferable alternative is available.

"henryquirk" wrote:No one has a capacity for unlimited choice. Our choices are bound up in and by our flesh and the world.

Agreed.

"henryquirk" wrote:Example: I step into a Baskin Robbins. I view the 31 flavors. My inclination/preference is for chocolate or vanilla. The other flavors leave me cold.

I can...

Choose chocolate.

Choose vanilla.

Choose to leave the store without getting ice cream.

Choose to be an ornery fuck and get Pistachio (which I hate).

Any or all of the choices are expression of my will (that is: of 'me'), none of these choices is made in a vacuum (that is: all these choices occur within the context of my inclinations expressed at a certain time in a certain place, with certain elements present).

Absolutely true.

"henryquirk" wrote:I have limited choices within a context I only partially control, and still 'I' have four (or, maybe, more) possibles to choose from.

MY choice: MY responsibility.

No disagreement here.

"henryquirk" wrote:Joe the thief: makes his choice (to rob, to rob 'me', to beat 'me', and so on).

Joe's selection of a possible within the context he only partially controls is HIS choice: HIS responsibility.

Right to a degree, but this is where you have fallen off the bandwagon. This is the point at which you really need to understand the two-sided equation.

"henryquirk" wrote:Again; 'free will' is hooey; my autonomy/agency/self-deliberation/-possession is as real as the flesh that comprises me because my autonomy/agency/self-deliberation/-possession IS me.

He does have the ability to choose between options (although his choices are influenced by previous determinants), but what makes his will not free is that he is compelled to choose the alternative that gives him greater satisfaction.

No matter how you try to wrangle this concept, it simply ISN'T choice. There is no choice between options. 'Options' here are an illusion. There is one and only one direction possible.

You are not giving this author a chance. The review on Amazon was a joke; it was given by a guy on a forum like this who never read the book and misrepresented it. Why would you post this? Do you think this review proves anything? Are you trying to make me look bad?

peacegirl, thanks for stopping by and sharing your patient and thoughtful explanations.

i've taken a look at the text, and i have to admit i have trouble getting past the first couple of pages, past even the title page, for claiming that it's "the most important discovery of our times". maybe such a claim was true for the author himself at the time of his writing it. maybe it's true for you too, i don't know. but to imagine that it's true for everyone, to assert that it's "the most fantastic non-fiction book ever written", to promise "deliverance from evil", seems so out of touch with reality that it makes me not want to read it.

i'm sure there are many interesting insights in the book. but if a person wants to be heard, they have to show that they are capable of listening, too. they must show that they are capable of sustaining a connection to their audience. someone who thinks that he or she is the only one who is enlightened, and everyone else is too ignorant to have figured out any of this information for themselves, is not likely to get much of a readership.

good luck in sharing the information, though, and i do invite you to subscribe to the thread, as there may indeed be other readers in the future who may be interested in discussing it further.

All you've really done is say "read the book, and THEN you'll understand."

That's not a conversation (on your part): that's an advertisement.

500 pages is a commitment and you've offered nothing so far to interest me in making that commitment.

Were I you: I would first offer a summary of the book's major themes and points (with page references).

Do that and maybe a conversation can happen.

As for the idea of "trying to make (you) look bad?, no, that's not my goal. I simply spent five minutes in search and found what I did. I thought it was germane to the thread.

For the same reason: I cross reference 'the couch' with 'dissident philosophy'...it's all information that can, should, move the neighboring threads forward.

Things is, Peacegirl: if you want folks to take the book seriously, you're gonna have to exhibit just a tad more stamina. If you want folks to seriously engage: you'll have to offer a bit more than, "read the book, and THEN you'll understand."

Again: post a full-bodied abstract or summary and then, maybe, a conversation can happen.

Till then: the book, to me, is poor attempt to marry an interpretation of 'agency' to some kind of half-assed plan for world peace.

Speaking only for me: it's a poor, artificial, marriage and a pedestrian attempt at selling snake oil.

You do...you keep using the word choice when its meaningless. There is no choice in this model, period. If you redefine choice to mean and event with only one possible outcome, it no longer means what 'choice' is meant to mean in our language.

peacegirl wrote:

If you are so positive that the book has nothing to offer, then let's end the conversation because I'm getting tired.

Haha...giving up so easy. Well, I'm not going to read the book. I invited you to open a new thread and present its most cogent arguments for discussion, but your only line is 'read the book'. So thanks, but no thanks.

All you've really done is say "read the book, and THEN you'll understand."

That's not a conversation (on your part): that's an advertisement.

500 pages is a commitment and you've offered nothing so far to interest me in making that commitment.

Were I you: I would first offer a summary of the book's major themes and points (with page references).

Do that and maybe a conversation can happen.

As for the idea of "trying to make (you) look bad?, no, that's not my goal. I simply spent five minutes in search and found what I did. I thought it was germane to the thread.

For the same reason: I cross reference 'the couch' with 'dissident philosophy'...it's all information that can, should, move the neighboring threads forward.

Things is, Peacegirl: if you want folks to take the book seriously, you're gonna have to exhibit just a tad more stamina. If you want folks to seriously engage: you'll have to offer a bit more than, "read the book, and THEN you'll understand."

Again: post a full-bodied abstract or summary and then, maybe, a conversation can happen.

Till then: the book, to me, is poor attempt to marry an interpretation of 'agency' to some kind of half-assed plan for world peace.

Speaking only for me: it's a poor, artificial, marriage and a pedestrian attempt at selling snake oil.

All you've really done is say "read the book, and THEN you'll understand."

That's not a conversation (on your part): that's an advertisement.

500 pages is a commitment and you've offered nothing so far to interest me in making that commitment.

Were I you: I would first offer a summary of the book's major themes and points (with page references).

Do that and maybe a conversation can happen.

As for the idea of "trying to make (you) look bad?, no, that's not my goal. I simply spent five minutes in search and found what I did. I thought it was germane to the thread.

For the same reason: I cross reference 'the couch' with 'dissident philosophy'...it's all information that can, should, move the neighboring threads forward.

Things is, Peacegirl: if you want folks to take the book seriously, you're gonna have to exhibit just a tad more stamina. If you want folks to seriously engage: you'll have to offer a bit more than, "read the book, and THEN you'll understand."

Again: post a full-bodied abstract or summary and then, maybe, a conversation can happen.

Till then: the book, to me, is poor attempt to marry an interpretation of 'agency' to some kind of half-assed plan for world peace.

Speaking only for me: it's a poor, artificial, marriage and a pedestrian attempt at selling snake oil.

I'm not trying to be adversarial: just stating a position.----------------------------------------------Your interpretation is wrong, period. I don't have any desire to cross-reference the book or to jump hoops to convince you to read anything. This has turned into something that was never intended. Calling this a half-assed plan for world peace is enough to know your position. Sorry you missed out on a very important discovery.

You do...you keep using the word choice when its meaningless. There is no choice in this model, period. If you redefine choice to mean and event with only one possible outcome, it no longer means what 'choice' is meant to mean in our language.

"peacegirl" wrote:You are right, but that doesn't mean we can't contemplate between alternatives. I already said 'choice' is an illusion. I guess you didn't read that.

Haha...giving up so easy. Well, I'm not going to read the book. I invited you to open a new thread and present its most cogent arguments for discussion, but your only line is 'read the book'. So thanks, but no thanks.

I was determined to write that! [/quote]

Yes you were determined; you chose not to read the book in the direction of greater satisfaction.

libertygrl wrote:peacegirl, thanks for stopping by and sharing your patient and thoughtful explanations.

i've taken a look at the text, and i have to admit i have trouble getting past the first couple of pages, past even the title page, for claiming that it's "the most important discovery of our times". maybe such a claim was true for the author himself at the time of his writing it. maybe it's true for you too, i don't know. but to imagine that it's true for everyone, to assert that it's "the most fantastic non-fiction book ever written", to promise "deliverance from evil", seems so out of touch with reality that it makes me not want to read it.

i'm sure there are many interesting insights in the book. but if a person wants to be heard, they have to show that they are capable of listening, too. they must show that they are capable of sustaining a connection to their audience. someone who thinks that he or she is the only one who is enlightened, and everyone else is too ignorant to have figured out any of this information for themselves, is not likely to get much of a readership.

I appreciate your kind words. The truth is that this is a fantastic discovery and the only reason he wrote the introduction the way he did is because of his experiences during his life. He never ever said that he is the only one enlightened. If you read the book you would see that. He was a very humble man.

"libertygrl" wrote:good luck in sharing the information, though, and i do invite you to subscribe to the thread, as there may indeed be other readers in the future who may be interested in discussing it further.

Philosophy forums in general have not served me well probably because the book needs to be read first and no one is willing to do that. It then turns nasty. I mean, seriously, can you imagine a philosophy teacher critiquing a well-known philosopher without carefully reading his work? I should have realized that you can't bring a book to a discussion group because it is not a book club.